Hi Tim:
Depends which jurisdiction you are in, I believe.
The United States did not sign the Berne Convention until 1988. The work
Phillip wants to use is older than that. TRIPS and WIPO both modify or
extend the rights in some jurisdictions. There are some countries that are
still not parties to the Berne convention, and many that are not parties to
TRIPS or WIPO.
I refer you to the current USA Copyright Act (which is the act under which
anything Phillip wants to publish will be governed). This is a chunky
little 350-page sleeping pill, but I believe the relevant bit is:
§ 401 · Notice of copyright: Visually perceptible copies
(a) General Provisions.‹Whenever a work protected under this title is
published in the United States or elsewhere by authority of the copyright
owner,
a notice of copyright as provided by this section may be placed on publicly
distributed
copies from which the work can be visually perceived, either directly or
with the aid of a machine or device.
(b) Form of Notice.‹If a notice appears on the copies, it shall consist of
the
following three elements:
(1) the symbol © (the letter C in a circle), or the word ³Copyright², or the
abbreviation ³Copr.²; and
(2) the year of first publication of the work; in the case of compilations
or
derivative works incorporating previously published material, the year date
of
first publication of the compilation or derivative work is sufficient. The
year
date may be omitted where a pictorial, graphic, or sculptural work, with
accompanying
text matter, if any, is reproduced in or on greeting cards, postcards,
stationery, jewelry, dolls, toys, or any useful articles; and
(3) the name of the owner of copyright in the work, or an abbreviation by
which the name can be recognized, or a generally known alternative
designation
of the owner.
(c) Position of Notice.‹The notice shall be affixed to the copies in such
manner and location as to give reasonable notice of the claim of copyright.
The
Register of Copyrights shall prescribe by regulation, as examples, specific
methods
of affixation and positions of the notice on various types of works that
will satisfy
this requirement, but these specifications shall not be considered
exhaustive.
(d) Evidentiary Weight of Notice.‹If a notice of copyright in the form
and position specified by this section appears on the published copy or
copies to
which a defendant in a copyright infringement suit had access, then no
weight
shall be given to such a defendant¹s interposition of a defense based on
innocent
infringement in mitigation of actual or statutory damages, except as
provided in
the last sentence of section 504(c)(2).
The upshot of this is: The act appears to grant copyright without the need
to asset your claim, but any defence of the copyright in court is likely to
fail unless you have claimed it.
Only a lawyer could have left things as such a muddle (because the effect is
to create a lawyer¹s picnic that will mean they get off with most of the
funds if you take it to court). So the bottom line is: ³Claim it or lose
it!²
Cheers
Umm, not quite correct. To start out with "to be legal" might imply there is
some illegal way to attribute copyright. Frankly there is no requirement
under law for Phillip to attribute it at all.
Also, you don't need the word "copyright". The circled C symbol is the
recognized symbol to all signers of the Berne Convention and the Universal
Copyright Convention, the latter of which specifically calls for the symbol.
Or maybe Berne, I forget. But anyway, one of them demands the symbol.
--
The email below is my business email -- Please do not email me about forum
matters unless I ask you to; or unless you intend to pay!
John McGhie, Microsoft MVP (Word, Mac Word), Consultant Technical Writer,
McGhie Information Engineering Pty Ltd
Sydney, Australia. | Ph: +61 (0)4 1209 1410
+61 4 1209 1410, mailto:
[email protected]